Are animals autistic savants?

Animal behavourist Temple Grandin has a theory that animals are like autistic savants, they think in images and have highly specialised cognitive skills.

Grandin’s theory has been influential partly owing to her expertise in animal behaviour and cognition, and partly because she has Asperger’s syndrome herself, a condition on the autism spectrum.

This month’s edition of PLoS Biology has an essay which argues against the theory, suggesting that the apparent similarity with autism is doesn’t account for the neuropsychological findings in both humans and animals:

Autistic savants show extraordinary skills, particularly in music, mathematics, and drawing. Do animals sometimes show forms of extreme (though, of course, different) cognitive skills confined to particular domains that resemble those shown by autistic savants? We argue that the extraordinary cognitive feats shown by some animal species can be better understood as adaptive specialisations that bear little, if any, relationship to the unusual skills shown by savants.

It has also been argued that autistic savants “think in detail”, and that this is the key to their extraordinary skills. Do animals have privileged access to lower level sensory information before it is packaged into concepts, as has been argued for autistic humans, or do they process sensory inputs according to rules that pre-empt or filter what is perceived even at the lowest levels of sensory processing? We argue that animals, like nonautistic humans, process sensory information according to rules, and that this manner of processing is a specialised feature of the left hemisphere of the brain in both humans and nonhuman animals. Hence, we disagree with the claim that animals are similar to autistic savants. However, we discuss the possibility that manipulations that suppress activity of the left hemisphere and enhance control by the right hemisphere shift attention to the details of individual stimuli, as opposed to categories and higher-level concepts, and can thereby make performance more savant-like in both humans and animals.

It’s probably worth noting that one of the authors is neuroscientist Allan Snyder and the article essentially argues that the similarity is unlikely because it doesn’t fit with Snyder’s own theory on savant abilities.

Snyder has a bold but still evidence lite theory that savant-like skills can be created in normal people by reducing the function of the left fronto-temporal lobe.

He argues that this reduces the competition with the equivalent area on the right. The right fronto-temporal is apparently specialised for dealing with sensory details so when it is unopposed by the area of the left, details-based savant like skills emerge.

Unfortunately, neither side of the debate has enough evidence to make a definitive case, but it makes for a fascinating discussion about different forms of thought and perception.

If you want to know more about Grandin’s theory, it’s described in her book Animals in Translation and it’s covered by a documentary about her that’s available to view online.

The PLoS essay also contains a commentary by Grandin herself.

Link to PLoS Biology essay ‘Are Animals Autistic Savants?’.
Link to documentary ‘The Woman Who Thinks Like a Cow’.

Laughter and the return of RadioLab

RadioLab, one of the most wonderfully produced radio shows around, has just started a new series with a fantastic edition on the psychology and neuroscience of laughter.

Tuning in to RadioLab is like listening to the enthusiastic daydreams of some slightly stoned but fantastically well informed scientists.

This edition looks at laughter, the behaviour that Aristotle thought was one of the few that were uniquely human.

Most interesting, the programme looks at the social uses of laughter and how it signals dominance and superiority, and how we use it to make others feel safe. But there much more than that, including laughing rats and laughing hysteria.

Another great edition and a pleasure to listen to.

Link to RadioLab on laughter (with streamed and mp3 audio).

Are you experienced? Does it matter?

Time magazine has an article on the counter-intuitive psychology of expertise and experience. It turns out simple experience might not add anything to our competency, it’s how we use our time in attempting to master a skill that counts.

The article notes that research has typically failed to show that experience, on its own, predicts task performance. In other words, old hands often do no better than novices.

Unfortunately for us, it seems the secret to expertise lies within the well-known saying that ‘genius is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration’.

Research suggests that it is experience of practising the most difficult and laborious aspects of a skill that are key.

Ericsson’s primary finding is that rather than mere experience or even raw talent, it is dedicated, slogging, generally solitary exertion – repeatedly practicing the most difficult physical tasks for an athlete, repeatedly performing new and highly intricate computations for a mathematician – that leads to first-rate performance. And it should never get easier; if it does, you are coasting, not improving. Ericsson calls this exertion “deliberate practice,” by which he means the kind of practice we hate, the kind that leads to failure and hair-pulling and fist-pounding. You like the Tuesday New York Times crossword? You have to tackle the Saturday one to be really good.

Take figure-skating. For the 2003 book Expert Performance in Sports, researchers Janice Deakin and Stephen Cobley observed 24 figure skaters as they practiced. Deakin and Cobley asked the skaters to complete diaries about their practice habits. The researchers found that Elite skaters spent 68% of their sessions practicing jumps – one of the riskiest and most demanding parts of figure-skating routines. Skaters in a second tier, who were just as experienced in terms of years, spent only 48% of their time on jumps, and they rested more often. As Deakin and her colleagues write in the Cambridge Handbook, “All skaters spent considerably more time practicing jumps that already existed in their repertoire and less time on jumps they were attempting to learn.” In other words, we like to practice what we know, stretching out in the warm bath of familiarity rather than stretching our skills. Those who overcome that tendency are the real high performers.

Link to Time article ‘The Science of Experience’.

Blue Brain Rising

Seed Magazine has a fantastic article on the ‘Blue Brain’ project that aims to eventually create a biologically accurate simulation of the human brain on a supercomputer.

So far, they’ve only managed to simulate a cortical column but this in itself is quite impressive as many thought it could never be done.

The project is currently simulating about 10,000 neurons and a total of about 30 million synaptic connections.

If you’ve heard about artificial neural networks before this might not sound very impressive, but the difference between this project and most others is that it attempts digitally simulate the biological processes of each individual cell.

In contrast, most neural networks are made up of individual elements that are usually little more than metaphors of how neurons actually work.

A huge boost is that the project has shown that their software cortical column spontaneously acts like its biological equivalent when its switched on and stimulated.

It didn’t take long before the model reacted. After only a few electrical jolts, the artificial neural circuit began to act just like a real neural circuit. Clusters of connected neurons began to fire in close synchrony: the cells were wiring themselves together. Different cell types obeyed their genetic instructions. The scientists could see the cellular looms flash and then fade as the cells wove themselves into meaningful patterns. Dendrites reached out to each other, like branches looking for light. “This all happened on its own,” Markram says. “It was entirely spontaneous.” For the Blue Brain team, it was a thrilling breakthrough. After years of hard work, they were finally able to watch their make-believe brain develop, synapse by synapse. The microchips were turning themselves into a mind.

It’s an engrossing article that captures both the science behind the project and some of the personalities involved.

Link to Seed article ‘Out of the Blue’.

Dr Ginger Campbell’s Brain Science Podcasts

I’ve been listening to some of Dr Ginger Campbell’s brain science podcasts recently and am thoroughly enjoying them.

Campbell has been broadcasting for a fair while now (she’s just put her 31st podcast online) but these latest editions are particularly good.

I caught a few of the early ones and found them a little rough around the edges to be honest. I have only recently revisited to discover I’ve been missing out on some great discussions.

Not tied down by the dictates of a radio schedule, the programmes are often wonderfully satisfying and in-depth. She doesn’t like Chomsky’s theories very much though as you’ll discover in a recent edition on the evolution of language!

Campbell has obviously also put a lot of hard work into getting neuroscientists on the show to be interviewed, which make for some of the most interesting exchanges.

Link to Dr Ginger Campbell’s Brain Science podcast.

Maths and the numbers game in the brain

Frontal Cortex has alerted me to a wonderful article in The New Yorker about Stanislas Dehaene’s work on understanding the neuropsychology of number sense.

Like written and spoken language, human numerical abilities are quite astonishing for how they are organised in the brain.

After brain injury, various maths or numerical abilities can be shown to ‘doubly dissociate‘, meaning that parts of the ability can be independently damaged and so it can be inferred that they rely on independent (but, of course, interacting) brain systems.

The surprise comes from the fact that as a species, abilities like complex language, writing and maths are relatively recent cultural innovations.

While some of the core abilities may be inherited, there must be some aspects of the more complex skills which become tied up with the development of brain structure as we grow to account for the way in which they break down in very selective ways after brain damage.

Dehaene is one of the key researchers in understanding the neuropsychology of numerical ability and what he calls ‘number sense’ – a more general intuitive perception of quantity and number.

It has been suggested that this is also linked to other ways of perceiving the world, as can be seen from some strange interactions between number and space that can be seen in experiments:

But the brain is the product of evolution—a messy, random process—and though the number sense may be lodged in a particular bit of the cerebral cortex, its circuitry seems to be intermingled with the wiring for other mental functions. A few years ago, while analyzing an experiment on number comparisons, Dehaene noticed that subjects performed better with large numbers if they held the response key in their right hand but did better with small numbers if they held the response key in their left hand.

Strangely, if the subjects were made to cross their hands, the effect was reversed. The actual hand used to make the response was, it seemed, irrelevant; it was space itself that the subjects unconsciously associated with larger or smaller numbers. Dehaene hypothesizes that the neural circuitry for number and the circuitry for location overlap. He even suspects that this may be why travellers get disoriented entering Terminal 2 of Paris’s Charles de Gaulle Airport, where small-numbered gates are on the right and large-numbered gates are on the left. “It’s become a whole industry now to see how we associate number to space and space to number,” Dehaene said. “And we’re finding the association goes very, very deep in the brain.”

The article is a great read and a useful introduction to some of the key findings in the field, as well as containing a whole load of eye-opening findings about number and the brain.

Link to New Yorker article ‘Numbers Guy’.

Autism reconsidered

Wired covers the beginning of a possible revolution in how we understand autism from both a humanistic and a scientific point of view.

The article starts by discussing Amanda Baggs who is a non-speaking but incredibly articulate young woman with autism.

We discussed her video previously on Mind Hacks which remains a remarkably inspiring challenge to how we understand and value people who experience the world differently.

This alternative view of autism as a variation rather than a disorder in human neurology has been taken up by some researchers, and the article also looks at how recent neuropsychology research is starting to reframe the condition.

The first test, known as the Wechsler Intelligence Scale, has helped solidify the notion of peaks of ability amid otherwise pervasive mental retardation among autistics. The other test is Raven’s Progressive Matrices, which requires neither a race against the clock nor a proctor breathing down your neck. The Raven is considered as reliable as the Wechsler, but the Wechsler is far more commonly used…

What the researchers found was that while non-autistic subjects scored just about the same ‚Äî a little above average ‚Äî on both tests, the autistic group scored much better on the Raven. Two individuals’ scores swung from the mentally retarded range to the 94th percentile. More significantly, the subset of autistic children in the study scored roughly 30 percentile points higher on the Raven than they did on the more language-dependent Wechsler, pulling all but a couple of them out of the range for mental retardation.

While the majority of autism research is very much disorder based, the article is a wide-ranging look at the autism spectrum and a great review of some of the new thinking that beginning to challenge the status quo.

Link to article ‘Scientists Reconsider What They Think They Know’.

Fragments of consciousness

Dana’s online neuroscience magazine Cerebrum has a fantastic article on trauma and dissociation – the splitting of consciousness that apparently makes some aspects of the mind inaccessible to others.

Dissociation is a term that’s used rather loosely in modern psychology and psychiatry. It is sometimes used to be synonymous with derealisation or depersonalisation, describing a feeling of being detached from reality or not being ‘grounded’ in your usual sense of self.

However, in its original and most interesting formulation by the French psychiatrist Pierre Janet, it describes the splitting of consciousness so one part of conscious experience is compartmentalised, becomes inaccessible, is literally ‘dis-associated’ from the rest.

Its not clear why it occurs, but Janet’s theory (often erroneously ascribed to Freud) suggests its a defence against psychological distress. Like the mental equivalent of brushing something under the carpet until you’re unaware it existed or you even did the brushing.

Regardless of whether it is genuinely a ‘defence’ in this sense, it is thought to be at play in conversion disorder, where a person might experience paralysis despite having no damage to the muscles or nervous system (so called ‘hysterical paralysis’).

There is now growing evidence that the high level control systems in the brain deliberately inhibit the movement in the immobile limb, outside the conscious control of the patient.

It is also thought to be the mechanism by which hypnosis has its effect on those susceptible to it. In this case, however, it is a form voluntary dissociation guided by suggestion – meaning someone can have the experience of, for example, limb movement without the associated sense of having willed the action.

One of the most striking demonstrations of this form of dissociation is where some people can be hypnotised not to be bothered by pain, despite the fact they can report on its intensity – even to the point of surgical operations being possible without anaesthetic in some rare cases.

Perhaps it’s not surprising then that dissociative disorders, where patients are seemingly permanently dissociated from their memory (dissociative amnesia) or dissociated from their senses or actions (conversion disorder) are particularly linked to trauma.

The most controversial of these syndromes is what used to be called ‘multiple personality disorder’, but is now called ‘dissociative identity disorder’ to suggest that the patient’s very personality structure has become dissociated from itself, seemingly leading to several identities or ‘alters’.

It’s partly controversial because it was so obviously over-diagnosed in a period of 1950s and 60s American psychiatry that was seemingly drunk on Freudian theory without recourse to the strong coffee of scientific testing.

But its also controversial because its so rare despite still being in the diagnostic manuals. For example, I’ve never met a patient with the condition, and I’ve never met anyone who’s met a patient with the condition, whereas I’ve seen many patients with dissociative amnesias and conversion disorders.

The Cerebrum opens as if it’s about ‘multiple personality disorder’ but don’t be fooled – it’s actually a really good review of what cognitive science has told us about how trauma might cause dissociation (almost all the research mentioned is on memory rather than ‘multiple personalities’).

This is still a controversial area but the article gives the case for the link. The article presents evidence that experience of childhood abuse, both physical and sexual, may be particularly linked to dissociation, perhaps suggesting that it arises from an attempt at a ‘defence’ in some cases.

Cognitive scientists are now increasingly interested in dissociation and hopefully this new level of interest should unlock some of the its mysterious secrets.

Link to article ‘Coming Apart: Trauma and the Fragmentation of the Self’.

2008-02-29 Spike activity

Quick links from the past week in mind and brain news:

“Chewing gum and context-dependent memory: the independent roles of chewing gum and mint flavour”: A lovely forthcoming paper from The British Journal of Psychology.

Bloggingheads.tv has a video debate on natural *cough*, sorry, experimental philosophy.

Pure Pedantry investigates the neurological basis of the “runner’s high“.

Have you been in psychotherapy doctor? The New York Times has an article on the dying tradition of psychiatrists being in therapy.

A new book on ‘neuroarthistory‘ is picked up by My Mind on Books.

Bolding going back to 1962. The Sunday Herald reports on a recently discovered neuroreceptor link found between psychosis and effects of LSD.

Parapsychologist Dean Radin is interviewed by the San Francisco Chronicle.

We respond differently to babies’ faces within 150 milliseconds. Cognitive Daily covers a MEG study of face recognition responses in the brain.

BBC News reports that poor diet is linked to bad behaviour in children.

To the bunkers! $24 billion spend predicted to developed autonomous robot armies. You have 20 seconds to comply!

The first human nerve tissue transplant has been completed. Next step, Robocop (we hope).

Wired reports on a psychologist leading the competition to develop a film recommendation algorithm and win the Netflix Prize.

How do psychologists study what we know about ourselves? Psychologist Virgina Kwan writes a guest article for the BPS Research Digest

Against compulsory happiness: The LA Times discusses the miracle of melancholia and BBC News asks is depression good for you?

First Monday ponders whether whether the increasingly media obsessed world needs to be understood as an attention economy.

Deric Bownd’s has a primer on executive function in the prefrontal cortex.

The normality of strangers

“The only normal people are the one’s you don’t know very well.”

A quote from the Austrian psychologist Alfred Adler. Not sure exactly where this quote comes from, but it’s widely quoted on the net.

Adler was hugely influential in the early Freudian circle and coined the term ‘inferiority complex’ to describe what he thought was the innate sense of inferiority we are all born with and need to learn to manage as part of our development.

He believed that this developmental process shaped the personality and was reflected in each person’s individual personality traits.

UPDATE: I’ve just noticed that there don’t seem to be any photographs of Alfred Adler Smiling. Cheer up Dr Adler.

Medicated Americans

Scientific American Mind has a fantastic article on the endemic use of antidepressant drugs in the United States. It starts with some surprising statistics: 11 percent of American women and 5 percent of men are on antidepressants.

Serious clinical depression is devastating, and if ever you needed convincing that mental illness should be taken as seriously as physical illness, you only need to meet someone suffering in the depths of a mood disorder.

In contrast, the article notes that the modern concept of depression and the diagnostic criteria have been increasingly widened to cover states of low mood or disinterest that would previously have never been thought of as a medical problem.

It’s full of interesting snippets from the scientific literature to suggest the pervasive influence of this new broader ‘depression’ on society.

For example, a 2007 study found that 1 in 4 people treated for depression have recently experienced a major emotional setback, such as a marriage break-up, a job loss or a financial crisis – suggesting the emotional difficulties may be part of a normal reaction to a serious life event.

A 2006 study found that three-quarters of people prescribed antidepressants receive them for a non-licensed or ‘off label’ reason – for a purpose that there is no strong evidence for.

Furthermore:

If statistics serve, we know a number of things about the Medicated American. We know there is a very good chance she has no psychiatric diagnosis. A study of antidepressant use in private health insurance plans by the New England Research Institute found that 43 percent of those who had been prescribed antidepressants had no psychiatric diagnosis or any mental health care beyond the prescription of the drug. We know she is probably female: twice as many psychiatric drugs are prescribed for women than for men, reported a 1991 study in the British Journal of Psychiatry. Remarkably, in 2002 more than one in three doctor’s office visits by women involved the prescription of an antidepressant, either for the writing of a new prescription or for the maintenance of an existing one, according to the ­Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

This is not to dismiss the suffering of those who have less disabling mood problems – each of which can be a torment in itself.

The key question though, is should it be the responsibility of medicine to prevent these unpleasant mood states, and if so, is medication the answer?

Psychological therapies are known to be effective treatments when depression first occurs and better than drugs in preventing relapse, and for much mild – moderate depression increasing activity levels and light exercise can be strikingly effective.

For more serious cases, a combination of drugs and psychological treatment is the most effective treatment.

The boundaries of illness say as much about our society as they do about our medical advances because it is impossible to define illness without making a value judgement about what point normal variation becomes a pathology.

Depression and antidepressants and complicated because there are many interests – individual, professional, scientific and financial – all shaping how we detect and treat ‘it’.

Over these last few months it has become clear that medication is not as effective as the published evidence has led us to believe, and that we need to radically rethink how we understand mood problems and help those who suffer them.

While the SciAm article focuses on the US where the problem is most apparent, it is clear that this is an issue facing many countries in the West.

Link to SciAm article ‘The Medicated Americans’.

The metaphysics of a Jazz Thing

A fantastic study has just been released by open-access science journal PLoS One that investigated the neuroscience of jazz improvisation.

Jazz musicians were put inside an fMRI brain scanner and were asked to do complete a number of different musical exercises using a specially adapted magnet-friendly keyboard.

The musicians were asked to demonstrate musical scales, a pre-practised fixed piece, and an improvisation exercise while their brains were scanned.

A summary of the study by the John Hopkins medical school team gives the main results:

The scientists found that a region of the brain known as the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, a broad portion of the front of the brain that extends to the sides, showed a slowdown in activity during improvisation. This area has been linked to planned actions and self-censoring, such as carefully deciding what words you might say at a job interview. Shutting down this area could lead to lowered inhibitions, Limb suggests.

The researchers also saw increased activity in the medial prefrontal cortex, which sits in the center of the brain’s frontal lobe. This area has been linked with self-expression and activities that convey individuality, such as telling a story about yourself.

Some years ago, psychiatrist Sean Spence suggested that Jazz music may have been born owing to the ‘the father of Jazz’, Buddy Bolden, having schizophrenia and suffering from associated frontal lobe impairments.

Spence argued that reduced frontal lobe function meant that Bolden could only improvise, as he didn’t have the cognitive control to stick to pre-learnt pieces.

At the time improvisation was considered a sign that you couldn’t play ‘proper music’ well enough, but Bolden took improvisation to a new level with wondrous flights of fancy and, as the legend goes, jazz was born. That’s not the whole story of course, but it’s possibly an ingredient.

While these new findings don’t give us much of a lead on whether this might have been the genuine beginning of jazz music, it’s interesting that the idea that reduced frontal lobe function ‘frees up’ the over-inhibited playing of set pieces, is consistent.

Link to PLoS One article on the cognitive neuroscience of Jazz.
Link to study summary.
Link to BBC News on Spence’s theory.

Behavioural Obamanomics

Theories are made great by those whom they inspire. Perhaps then, it is not surprising that the fresh new face of the US presidential race has been inspired by behavioural economics, one of the fresh new faces of cognitive science.

The New Republic magazine has an article on how the Obama campaign have adopted behavioural economics – the science of how people actually reason about money, as opposed to how they should – as their mainstay of economic policy.

Unsurprisingly, The New Republic, generally a centre-left publication, hold out great hope for the partnership of this new science and an Obama government.

You can find subtle evidence of this influence across numerous Obama proposals. For example, one key behavioral finding is that people often fail to set aside money for retirement even when their employers offer generous 401(k) plans. If, on the other hand, you automatically enroll workers in 401(k)s but allow them to opt out, most stick with it. Obama’s savings plan exploits this so-called “status quo” bias.

What is more interesting though is that cognitive science is starting to make inroads into policy development outside the traditional area of defence (where psychology, and more recently neuroscience, have traditionally been key in driving defence spending).

Link to The New Republic article ‘The Audacity of Data’.
Link to intro to behavioural economics (both via MeFi).